We write to express our opposition to the confirmation of John
Bolton as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. The
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and Western States
Legal Foundation (WSLF) each have more than two decades experience
in analyzing international law matters related to disarmament and
security. Based two blocks from the United Nations in New York City,
LCNP closely follows Security Council and General Assembly deliberations.
Based in Oakland, California, WSLF has consistently monitored Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty review proceedings in New York and Geneva
and often UN proceedings as well.

The most important reason Mr. Bolton is unsuited to be UN
ambassador is his frequently and strongly expressed contempt for
the United Nations and international law. The contempt is
well-known, but the underlying reasoning deserves examination. In
1997, espousing the position that the United States is not legally
bound to pay its UN dues, Mr. Bolton wrote, “Treaties are
‘law’ only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international
operations, treaties are simply ‘political’ obligations.”1
He contends that treaties do not impose true legal obligations on
states because a coherent, legitimate and consistently applied international
enforcement framework is lacking. In a 2000 article, he quoted a
Supreme Court statement that a treaty “depends for the enforcement
of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments that
are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject
of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured
party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced
by actual war.” He went on to a conclusion not reached or
supported by Supreme Court cases: “This is not domestic law
at work. Accordingly, there is no reason consider treaties as ‘legally’
binding internationally, and certainly not as ‘law’
themselves.”2

Mr. Bolton’s view of international law is wrong, unwise,
and dangerous.

It is wrong because it fails to appreciate the normative expectation
specific to legal obligations that their observance is mandatory,
and because it underestimates the incentives for compliance and
capacity for enforcement in the international sphere.3

It is unwise because it erodes international cooperation and compliance
with norms. Other states do not enter into treaties with the United
States believing that they are only political commitments that can
be overridden based on U.S. interests. Noting that “a treaty
is only another name for a bargain,” John Jay explained “that
it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain
with us, which should be binding on them absolutely, but
on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound
by it.”4 Mr. Bolton
said something not altogether dissimilar regarding North Korea,
remarking that it is “hard to see how we can have conversations
with a government that has blatantly violated its agreements.”5

Mr. Bolton’s view of international law is dangerous because
its consequences can go beyond erosion of practical relationships
and reach into the realm of nihilism and chaos.

Mr. Bolton is also unsuited to be UN ambassador because as
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
he has been closely identified with multiple assaults on treaty
regimes that protect the security of Americans and people around
the world. Indeed, he appears to have been the principal
architect of the Bush administration’s policy of hostility
towards treaties and international law, and seems also to have taken
a personal joy in executing the policy. Among the assaults:

Verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC): After seven years of negotiations, in the summer of 2001,
under Mr. Bolton’s leadership the State Department announced
that the United States would not continue with efforts to create
a protocol establishing a verification regime for the existing ban
on biological weapons. The negotiations then were suspended, as
other states did not want to go forward without the United States.
Mr. Bolton reportedly told colleagues about the protocol, “It's
dead, dead, dead, and I don’t want it coming back from the
dead.”6 Adding insult
to injury, in November 2001, just hours before the fifth BWC review
conference ended, Mr. Bolton shocked and embittered the assembled
diplomats by needlessly introducing a surprise proposal to formally
terminate the process for negotiations on the protocol or any less
comprehensive instrument.7
The United States later dropped its insistence on this point. It
defies comprehension that the United States held to its position
on a verification protocol following September 11 and the anthrax
attacks, which surely illustrate the need for international monitoring
of weapon-applicable biological research.8
In 2002, Mr. Bolton spent political capital on charges that Cuba
has a biological weapons program. The charges were disputed at the
time, and a 2004 U.S. intelligence assessment failed to back them
up.9

Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) and the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT): Mr. Bolton helped negotiate the
2002 agreement with Russia on reductions of strategic nuclear weapons.
The “treaty” is little more than a confidence-building
measure; it contains no provisions for verification or transparency
regarding the reductions. This approach abandoned a practice of
verification that was central to the entire history of U.S.-Soviet/Russian
arms control, and breached commitments to principles of verification,
transparency, and irreversible arms control and disarmament approved
by the United States and other states participating in the 2000
Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.10
SORT is wholly consistent with Mr. Bolton’s long-standing
rejection of verified treaties as an important tool in addressing
what is still the gravest problem faced by the world, the risk of
use of nuclear explosives in war or terrorism. At a 2004 meeting,
Mr. Bolton arrogantly brushed aside other countries’ concerns
about whether the United States is meeting the obligation of good-faith
negotiation of nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT as
specified by the 2000 commitments. He said, “We cannot divert
attention from the violations we face [by Iran and North Korea]
by focusing on Article VI issues that do not exist.”11
Mr. Bolton thus ignored that the viability of the nonproliferation
regime depends on balanced compliance with both nonproliferation
and disarmament obligations. Moreover, he has employed belligerent
rhetoric regarding both North Korea and Iran that seems inconsistent
with U.S. policy and realistic mechanisms for inducing compliance
with nonproliferation norms.

Relations with international organizations: Mr. Bolton effectuated
the controversial removal of Jose Bustani as director general of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.12
Of the 98 countries which voted on the matter, only 48 supported
the U.S. position; seven countries opposed, and 43 abstained. Mr.
Bolton is now spearheading the so far unsuccessful U.S. effort opposing
a third term for the highly regarded Mohamed ElBaradei as director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.13
This history of antagonism towards the heads of international organizations,
and the many important countries which support them, would certainly
diminish Mr. Bolton’s ability to be an effective UN ambassador.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):
Mr. Bolton took the lead in the Bush administration’s unprecedented
step of notifying the United Nations that the United States does
not intend to ratify the Rome Statute, a treaty it had signed. He
commented that it “was the happiest moment of my government
service.”14 This
action was followed by a campaign against the ICC on several fronts,
including a first adopted, but later rebuffed annual U.S. proposal
for a Security Council resolution exempting personnel in UN authorized
operations from ICC jurisdiction.

Finally, Mr. Bolton is the wrong choice to represent the
United States regarding critical matters facing the United Nations
in coming months. Mr. Bolton is not the right person to
assume the position of permanent representative to the Security
Council when the Council is considering a referral of the Sudan
situation to the ICC as part of a package of measures to address
the ongoing atrocities. Also on the agenda for the United Nations
this year is consideration of significant proposals for reform,
among them establishment of a Peace-building Commission that would
assist failed states, and reorganization of the Security Council.
Mr. Bolton’s contempt for other countries and for the United
Nations is illustrated by a 2000 radio interview in which he said
that “[i]f I were redoing the Security Council today, I’d
have one permanent member because that’s the real reflection
of the distribution of power in the world,” the one permanent
member being the United States.15
His rhetoric and positions have been so extreme that the nomination
has given rise to what we trust are ill-founded rumors around the
United Nations that it is a first step towards U.S. pullout. His
consequent inability to establish rapport and inspire trust in the
UN context make him highly ill-qualified to ensure that the interests
of the American and other peoples are well served in reform efforts.

Politically, the nomination of Mr. Bolton amounts to a slap at
the whole rest of the world, reversing any gains from President
Bush’s fence-mending expedition to Europe. Neither Secretary
of State Condoleeza Rice or Karen Hughes as Undersecretary for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs will be able to repair the damage.
But the Senate could, by refusing to approve the nomination.

In closing, we urge the committee to reaffirm the United States’
commitment to the rule of law in international affairs and to decline
to recommend confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. permanent representative
to the United Nations. Please let us know if we can assist your
deliberations in any way.

11. Statement by United States Under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John
R. Bolton to the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for
the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, “The NPT: A Crisis of Non-Compliance,”
New York, April 27, 2004 (emphasis supplied), online at www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/usa27.pdf.